CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 191Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesVisual perception and processing mechanismsVisual Attention and Saliency Detection

What is top-down about contingent capture?

Open access
Belopolsky, Artem V., Schreij, Daniel, Theeuwes, Jan·2010·Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
DOI 10.3758/app.72.2.326
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In the present study, we explored the mechanisms involved in the contingent capture phenomenon, using a variant of the classic precuing paradigm of Folk, Remington, and Johnston (1992). Rather than keeping the target fixed over a whole block of trials (as has traditionally been done with contingent capture experiments), we encouraged participants to adopt a top-down set before each trial. If top-down attentional set determines which property captures attention, as is claimed by the contingent capture hypothesis, one would expect that only properties that match the top-down set would capture attention. We showed that even though participants knew what the target would be on the upcoming trial, both relevant and irrelevant properties captured attention (Experiment 1). An intertrial analysis (Experiments 1 and 2) showed that previous contingent capture findings may, to a large extent, be explained by intertrial priming. In addition, when participants were further forced into adopting the required top-down set (Experiments 3 and 4), irrelevant cues were suppressed, suggesting that top-down control might operate through disengagement of attention from the location of a property that does not match top-down goals. The present findings suggest that top-down control and intertrial priming make their own distinct contributions to the contingent capture phenomenon.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/app.72.2.326

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • When the attentional set switches randomly from trial to trial, attentional capture by physically salient features, task-relevant and task-irrelevant, cannot be prevented by the observer's perceptual goals.

    “Belopolsky and colleagues (Belopolsky, Schreij, & Theeuwes, 2010), for instance, showed that when the attentional set switches randomly from trial to trial, attentional capture by physically salient features (task-relevant and task-irrelevant) cannot be prevented by the observer’s perceptual goals.”

    From Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention. (2018) · cites this paper as Belopolsky, Schreij, & Theeuwes, 2010

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. tion, abrupt onset, and color. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 20, 317-329.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Belopolsky, A. V., Schreij, D., & Theeuwes, J.
Affiliations
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Belopolsky, Artem V.
ORCID
Venue
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2010-02
Volume
72
Issue
2
Pages
326-341
ISSN
  • 1943-3921 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-393X
DOI
10.3758/app.72.2.326
OpenAlex
W2146810960
Cited by
191
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 9
FWCI
9.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Attention Perception & Psychophysics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
Keywords
contingent capture, top-down attention, top-down control, attentional disengagement, attentional capture
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Association, Attention, Color Perception, Cues, Discrimination, Psychological, Female, Humans, Male, Orientation, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Visual Fields, Volition, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review